Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

WTF Obama

Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2011 7:44:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
http://www.forbes.com...

AT&T wants to buy T-Mobile. I thought they already had, what with all the smaller competitors making comericals about them already. But the Obama administration wants to prevent the merger.

Now, I can understand wanting to keep as much competition in the market as possible and trying to prevent monopolies. But this is not the way to reach that goal. Providing incentives to competition that actually wants to compete is. In this buyout, the government is looking to make at least a few hundred million in tax revenue. The government can offer some of that tax revenue as stimulus, or, as I would suggest, place it in a safe investment account, let it build interest, and if AT&T actually tries to jack up rates as a monopoly (which they aren't), then spend it to inject competition.

Either way, that's not what really bugs me about this. What does bug me is that AT&T is a damn good company for America. They have certainly done a lot. Last year, they were the #1 spender in the US, spending over $19 billion in capital (to improve there network), that creates thousands and thousands of jobs putting up towers and what not (followed by Verizon at $16 billion, and Walmart at just shy of $9 billion). And with this, they plan on bringing 5,000 jobs BACK to the US that were formerly shipped overseas by T-mobile. Not to mention that AT&T is big into Unions (compared to T-Mobile at least) and will likely see 20,000 non-union jobs turn into 20,000 union jobs.

Say what you want about unions, but from Obama's angle, this company is wanting to add 20,000 to the union numbers, and bring back 5,000 jobs... why the hell is Obama trying to stop it?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2011 7:48:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
but, the girl from the t mobile commercials is extremely hot
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2011 7:51:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/1/2011 7:48:23 PM, 000ike wrote:
but, the girl from the t mobile commercials is extremely hot

But they ripped that from Apple. I hate T-mobile for their lack of creativity.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2011 8:04:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The ridiculousness of all of this is that T-Mobile's failings should be a sign that there are possibly too many players for that particular business niche.

This is nothing short of an ignorant government attempting to run the economy.
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2011 10:41:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/1/2011 7:44:49 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
http://www.forbes.com...

AT&T wants to buy T-Mobile. I thought they already had, what with all the smaller competitors making comericals about them already. But the Obama administration wants to prevent the merger.

Now, I can understand wanting to keep as much competition in the market as possible and trying to prevent monopolies. But this is not the way to reach that goal. Providing incentives to competition that actually wants to compete is. In this buyout, the government is looking to make at least a few hundred million in tax revenue. The government can offer some of that tax revenue as stimulus, or, as I would suggest, place it in a safe investment account, let it build interest, and if AT&T actually tries to jack up rates as a monopoly (which they aren't), then spend it to inject competition.

Either way, that's not what really bugs me about this. What does bug me is that AT&T is a damn good company for America. They have certainly done a lot. Last year, they were the #1 spender in the US, spending over $19 billion in capital (to improve there network), that creates thousands and thousands of jobs putting up towers and what not (followed by Verizon at $16 billion, and Walmart at just shy of $9 billion). And with this, they plan on bringing 5,000 jobs BACK to the US that were formerly shipped overseas by T-mobile. Not to mention that AT&T is big into Unions (compared to T-Mobile at least) and will likely see 20,000 non-union jobs turn into 20,000 union jobs.

Say what you want about unions, but from Obama's angle, this company is wanting to add 20,000 to the union numbers, and bring back 5,000 jobs... why the hell is Obama trying to stop it?

I was one of those thousands of jobs and it was horrible. Low pay, micro-managed as hell (every syllable out of your mouth is regulated), and of low practical usefulness to society - the type of job that really lowers the quality of life for people.
Rob
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2011 10:50:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/1/2011 10:41:47 PM, Lasagna wrote:
At 9/1/2011 7:44:49 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Say what you want about unions, but from Obama's angle, this company is wanting to add 20,000 to the union numbers, and bring back 5,000 jobs... why the hell is Obama trying to stop it?

I was one of those thousands of jobs and it was horrible. Low pay, micro-managed as hell (every syllable out of your mouth is regulated), and of low practical usefulness to society - the type of job that really lowers the quality of life for people.

But isn't it better that 5,000 people get to choose those jobs than nobody be allowed to take them at all?
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2011 10:59:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/1/2011 10:50:38 PM, mongeese wrote:
But isn't it better that 5,000 people get to choose those jobs than nobody be allowed to take them at all?

Nah, I'm sure Lasagna knows how to run our lives and make decisions concerning our own well being better than we ever could. We're too dumb to have choices.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2011 11:18:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/1/2011 10:50:38 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 9/1/2011 10:41:47 PM, Lasagna wrote:
At 9/1/2011 7:44:49 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Say what you want about unions, but from Obama's angle, this company is wanting to add 20,000 to the union numbers, and bring back 5,000 jobs... why the hell is Obama trying to stop it?

I was one of those thousands of jobs and it was horrible. Low pay, micro-managed as hell (every syllable out of your mouth is regulated), and of low practical usefulness to society - the type of job that really lowers the quality of life for people.

But isn't it better that 5,000 people get to choose those jobs than nobody be allowed to take them at all?

Not when the job isn't actually doing any good for society. If they were farmers, builders, tool-makers, then yeah at least we could say we depend on them. CSRs are not a socially-productive position. They are quite negative, and not just because they are horrible jobs to work in. Phone companies have found that, by paying low-waged workers to handle bill disputes as CSRs, they actually save money as opposed to just stopping screwing over their customers. They all do it, so you can't just change services. They routinely screw up when they say they are going to waive activation fees, add extra features that you don't need, set pricing plans so that you pay for what you don't need (if you think about it, price-plans are a racket to begin with)... Between system "malfunctions" and overzealous sales reps adding things without the cust knowledge for extra commissions, they take in way more money than they lose to pay CSRs. In essence, thousands of people could be just sitting home drinking lemonade and society would actually be better off, not worse.

Miserable jobs don't need to be performed = win
Customers save money, both on not being ripped off and because they don't have to pay for CSR's salaries = win
business becomes more efficient = win
Society saves on resources (building space, heat, water, electric, production of computers, headsets, chairs, desks, etc.) = win

CSRs have some other functions, but nothing you can't do online yourself (unless they specifically design it so you can't do it). I worked for tech support too, which you might think would actually be useful, but I spent most of my time dealing with the stupidest sh*t like ringtones.
Rob
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 1:41:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/2/2011 1:13:52 AM, darkkermit wrote:
In favor of this. Antitrust laws are actually surprisingly the few things I am in favor of.

You are in favor of inefficiency then.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 1:57:50 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/2/2011 1:41:25 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/2/2011 1:13:52 AM, darkkermit wrote:
In favor of this. Antitrust laws are actually surprisingly the few things I am in favor of.

You are in favor of inefficiency then.

Competition somehow increases inefficiencies?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 8:27:31 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/2/2011 1:57:50 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/2/2011 1:41:25 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/2/2011 1:13:52 AM, darkkermit wrote:
In favor of this. Antitrust laws are actually surprisingly the few things I am in favor of.

You are in favor of inefficiency then.

Competition somehow increases inefficiencies?

Not in this case... forced competition almost always ends up becoming subsidized competition in this country.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 10:06:57 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/1/2011 10:59:48 PM, quarterexchange wrote:
At 9/1/2011 10:50:38 PM, mongeese wrote:
But isn't it better that 5,000 people get to choose those jobs than nobody be allowed to take them at all?

Nah, I'm sure Lasagna knows how to run our lives and make decisions concerning our own well being better than we ever could. We're too dumb to have choices.:

Yep.... I LOL'd....
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 10:12:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
This isn't a monopoly anymore than Microsoft was a monopoly (a monopoly with serious competition?). Oh, and would you look at that... Apple, Microsoft's competitor, has more money than the federal government, yet Microsoft was a monopoly on operating systems. Rrrrrrrrriiiiiiight... The only true monopoly here, as usual, is the Federal government sticking their job-destroying, fat @ss where it don't belong.

I concur with the OP. This is poor form, but hey, what's new...
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 11:39:14 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/2/2011 8:27:31 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/2/2011 1:57:50 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/2/2011 1:41:25 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/2/2011 1:13:52 AM, darkkermit wrote:
In favor of this. Antitrust laws are actually surprisingly the few things I am in favor of.

You are in favor of inefficiency then.

Competition somehow increases inefficiencies?

Not in this case... forced competition almost always ends up becoming subsidized competition in this country.

You were about to explain the efficiency of GM? Darkkermit?
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 12:06:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/2/2011 11:39:14 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/2/2011 8:27:31 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/2/2011 1:57:50 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/2/2011 1:41:25 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/2/2011 1:13:52 AM, darkkermit wrote:
In favor of this. Antitrust laws are actually surprisingly the few things I am in favor of.

You are in favor of inefficiency then.

Competition somehow increases inefficiencies?

Not in this case... forced competition almost always ends up becoming subsidized competition in this country.

You were about to explain the efficiency of GM? Darkkermit?

You mean the UAW monopoly?

Also, more competition leads to lower prices since businesses need to compete with one another.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 4:37:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/2/2011 12:06:11 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/2/2011 11:39:14 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/2/2011 8:27:31 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/2/2011 1:57:50 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/2/2011 1:41:25 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/2/2011 1:13:52 AM, darkkermit wrote:
In favor of this. Antitrust laws are actually surprisingly the few things I am in favor of.

You are in favor of inefficiency then.

Competition somehow increases inefficiencies?

Not in this case... forced competition almost always ends up becoming subsidized competition in this country.

You were about to explain the efficiency of GM? Darkkermit?

You mean the UAW monopoly?

Also, more competition leads to lower prices since businesses need to compete with one another.

Competition that is subsidized because it is politically incorrect to let any business fail is not what you want Darkkermit. Or do you truly believe there can be no ceiling to competition? All aspects of the economy can support unlimited competition?

Wrong idea.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 5:23:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/2/2011 4:37:30 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/2/2011 12:06:11 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/2/2011 11:39:14 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/2/2011 8:27:31 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/2/2011 1:57:50 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/2/2011 1:41:25 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/2/2011 1:13:52 AM, darkkermit wrote:
In favor of this. Antitrust laws are actually surprisingly the few things I am in favor of.

You are in favor of inefficiency then.

Competition somehow increases inefficiencies?

Not in this case... forced competition almost always ends up becoming subsidized competition in this country.

You were about to explain the efficiency of GM? Darkkermit?

You mean the UAW monopoly?

Also, more competition leads to lower prices since businesses need to compete with one another.

Competition that is subsidized because it is politically incorrect to let any business fail is not what you want

Both businesses are making massive profits. I don't think either of these companies would fail. Also, I wouldn't really call it subsidies since the government isn't paying either company money.

Darkkermit. Or do you truly believe there can be no ceiling to competition?

Of course not, but the telecommunication industry is an oligopoly.

All aspects of the economy can support unlimited competition?


Strawman. Do you really think unlimited mergers is good?

Wrong idea.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 5:56:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/1/2011 11:18:14 PM, Lasagna wrote:
At 9/1/2011 10:50:38 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 9/1/2011 10:41:47 PM, Lasagna wrote:
At 9/1/2011 7:44:49 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Say what you want about unions, but from Obama's angle, this company is wanting to add 20,000 to the union numbers, and bring back 5,000 jobs... why the hell is Obama trying to stop it?

I was one of those thousands of jobs and it was horrible. Low pay, micro-managed as hell (every syllable out of your mouth is regulated), and of low practical usefulness to society - the type of job that really lowers the quality of life for people.

But isn't it better that 5,000 people get to choose those jobs than nobody be allowed to take them at all?

Not when the job isn't actually doing any good for society.

Knowing how yo use your phone isn't good?

If they were farmers, builders, tool-makers, then yeah at least we could say we depend on them. CSRs are not a socially-productive position. They are quite negative, and not just because they are horrible jobs to work in. Phone companies have found that, by paying low-waged workers to handle bill disputes as CSRs, they actually save money as opposed to just stopping screwing over their customers. They all do it, so you can't just change services.

How do they screw you over, and how does handling it with CSRs help them?

They routinely screw up when they say they are going to waive activation fees, add extra features that you don't need, set pricing plans so that you pay for what you don't need (if you think about it, price-plans are a racket to begin with)... Between system "malfunctions" and overzealous sales reps adding things without the cust knowledge for extra commissions, they take in way more money than they lose to pay CSRs.

At that point they broke a contract with you and you take them to court. Surely the CSRs aren't delaying the justice system.

In essence, thousands of people could be just sitting home drinking lemonade and society would actually be better off, not worse.

Except we'd have less customer service. So we lose.

Miserable jobs don't need to be performed = win

Most jobs don't strictly need to be performed. We just want them to be performed, and are willing to pay X dollars for them. Other people are willing to perform the job for X dollars.

Customers save money, both on not being ripped off and because they don't have to pay for CSR's salaries = win

You assume that CSRs allow the companies to rip off their customers. Additionally, a company wouldn't hire CSRs if they weren't productive.

business becomes more efficient = win

If the business becomes more efficient, it already would have happened.

Society saves on resources (building space, heat, water, electric, production of computers, headsets, chairs, desks, etc.) = win

We lessen the demand for the resources, yes, because they're no longer being put to good use.

CSRs have some other functions, but nothing you can't do online yourself (unless they specifically design it so you can't do it).

If the people would rather look it up online, they'd look it up online.

I worked for tech support too, which you might think would actually be useful, but I spent most of my time dealing with the stupidest sh*t like ringtones.

Then the people want working ringtones. This is basic economics.